US Engagement with Religion in Conflict-Prone Settings

[wm]

"
We must compete a more successful message (not attack their message) to win this competition with Muslim extremists, and we must also modify our behavior in the Middle East. This must be a two-way street or we'll never get there.

I suspect it will take more than just competing a more successful message, particularly if we accept the value of BW's analogy based on his view of the Reformation's effect on the reigning Roman Catholic political status quo.

The response of Roman Catholicism in the Counter-Reformation was to turn away from the philosophical underpinnings of its world view and message--Neo-Platonism as modified by Augustine. A different world view, based on Aristotle, as seen through the lens of Thomas Aquinas, became central to the work of the reforming monks who sought to win the world back for Rome. The religious message remained the same; what changed was the metaphysical and epistemic foundation on which the message stood.

Interestingly, a slightly different process took place in England. The Anglican Church outdid Rome at its understanding of Aristotle and won the day by focussing on the pragmatic aspects of his work, particularly the naive empirical epistemology. This more practical application to the everyday person won over the English people more effectively than the casuistry found in Thomism.

(But this is all just my opinion as a former academic with some little hands on time as a practical person too.)

[Bob's World]

I suspect it will take more than just competing a more successful message, particularly if we accept the value of BW's analogy based on his view of the Reformation's effect on the reigning Roman Catholic political status quo.

The response of Roman Catholicism in the Counter-Reformation was to turn away from the philosophical underpinnings of its world view and message--Neo-Platonism as modified by Augustine. A different world view, based on Aristotle, as seen through the lens of Thomas Aquinas, became central to the work of the reforming monks who sought to win the world back for Rome. The religious message remained the same; what changed was the metaphysical and epistemic foundation on which the message stood.

Interestingly, a slightly different process took place in England. The Anglican Church outdid Rome at its understanding of Aristotle and won the day by focussing on the pragmatic aspects of his work, particularly the naive empirical epistemology. This more practical application to the everyday person won over the English people more effectively than the casuistry found in Thomism.

(But this is all just my opinion as a former academic with some little hands on time as a practical person too.)

Would love to pick your brain on this some day.

I really do believe, that we are sooo focused on the impact of the GWOT on us, that we fail to really appreciate everything that is going on for everyone else involved.

While there is not (currently) any major Islamic reform movement going on such as led by Luther; today's information age has to be breaking down the monopoly on information and knowledge of the Mullahs just as it did to the Catholic church leadership back then. Right now we are very focused on the outward manifestations of Muslim frustration; I suspect there will be a great deal of inward turmoil as well as those promoting reformation begin to bump more often and vigourously against those who wish to just keep things the way they are (or back to some vision of a perfection that used to be).

This is going to get more complex before it gets easier...

[George L. Singleton]

If the future is the youth of Islam in SW Asia and those overseas young Muslims in Europe, even the US, then we are still in deep trouble.

A few pointers from somewhat educated Pukhtuns who blast me for trying to constructively share what Judiasm, Christianiyt and Islam have in common:

1. Islam (they believe) is right, in part because it came last, and we are heretics and wrong.

2. Islam worships Allah, who these Oxford and Cambridge, in some cases, young Muslims believe is not the same God we worship.

3. While younger and more educated Muslims I have had dialogue with now for over 3 years, off and on, via e-mails on overseas websites such as Hujra Online in some cases will admit some degree of commonality on some points of our, my wording, in common religious heritage, they loose all objectivity and reason when the topic of Muhammud and his multiple wives comes up, including his 5th wife, who he married at age 9.

4. Yet, at the same time these same young Muslims attack Saudi Wahabbi Muslims for advocating marrying 10 year old girls.

5. Also, worthy of note are the few Muslimswho openly admit that their holy Qurran is and was written over time in different Arab dialects as that language has morphed into twenth something different versions of Arabic today...leaving confusion for their scholars in translations...which is what some young Muslims slam Christianity with/over, their allegations of translation errors they alledge.

6. Finally, to shut down an othewise never ending topic, when you share that different writers of different books in the Holy Bible give varied views on the same subjects, like different people looking at the piece of art with different interpretations, all complimentary and not conflicting, they deny this is so with Christianity, but claim it is so with Islam to justify inconsistencies, conflicts, and differing interpretations caused by Arabic words which can have 20 or more different meanings for the same word.

I prefer the practical, down to earth when discussing religion instead of the very high faluting abstract, which most young education Muslims today cannot follow at all, as they have enough trouble following simple, down to earth comparisons and discussions of religion.

Whereas a Muslims entire way of life and daily existance is bound up in Islam, literally, as are their various types of government(s), they just don't get basic democracy is they are "religious" Muslims vs. some who are moving away from Islam altogether toward a secular way of life and thinking.

Just George's two cents.

[jmm99]

seem to me to have a good practical grasp of their systematic theology (your points ## 1-2 & 5-6 - points ## 3-4 are issues of moral theology, on which I'll pass). On issues of systematic theology, there are real differences between Islam and Christianity. The latter, in its orthodox posture (e.g., Pope Benedict and John Ankerberg, to illustrate that that posture is not a monolith) is tied to Creed and Christ. Those two concepts cannot be reconciled with Islam or, for that matter, with Judaism.

Thus, on the level of systematic theology, engagement between orthodox Christianity and orthodox Islam is more likely to lead to flaming than anything else. What about engagement on a political level ?

Here, your last statement applies (I changed "is" to "if" since that seemed to be what you meant, not typed):

Whereas a Muslims entire way of life and daily existance is bound up in Islam, literally, as are their various types of government(s), they just don't get basic democracy [if] they are "religious" Muslims vs. some who are moving away from Islam altogether toward a secular way of life and thinking.

This is so true (I'm interpreting your use of "basic democracy" to equate to the Western constitutional theories of that concept).

The ideal political community for a religious Muslim (and I am not talking about extreme Salafists only) is what Paul Tillich termed a "theonomy". The particle "nomy" comes from "nomos" (law); so, theonomy is divine law. That was the religio-political state in Europe of the Middle Ages.

Maududi (just to use a Pakistani example) lays out the basics of an Islamic theonomous community - and in fact feels it would be a true democracy.

Our (US) concept of democracy is very much a product of the Enlightenment, and so much more autonomous (and separated from divine law). As the Preamble proves, our basic organic law comes from the People. In Islamic political thought (e.g., Maududi), autonomy still exists (the individual has free will and can reject God), but it is very much aware of its divine ground which is supreme. Again, in their thought, our recognition of political autonomy (but without accepting the supremacy of divine law) is a degeneration into mere humanism.

Wilf has made the point, over and over, that Middle Eastern politics are very much based on religion (at least in part theonomous communities). There are, however, as you point out, secularists and pragmatists.

The Bush administration (IMO) attempted to gloss over these fundamental religious and political differences. Perhaps, President Obama has a better grasp of Islam - and his administration will take a more pragmatic approach. We shall see.

[George L. Singleton]

analysis.

Trying to talk "politics" with university and high school age Pukhtuns invariably is to the majority them "talking religion."

Your implication is that we Westerners have the burden to bending over backwards to accommodate them and their unusual beliefs.

I have a problem with this personally, as it offends me in what I believe and practice, religiously, as a [Protestant} Christian. Most I correspond with via both their mainline website and via individual e-mails they sometimes send me on the side, outside their website [my e-mail address is readily avaiable in DAWN.com archives in many letters published there, as well as whenever a letter is published [occasionally even an article is published] in the Peshawar FRONTIER POST.

Mature website respondents/correspondents, as in adult members of Hujra Online.com, have no problem discussing different interpretations from Abraham to current times. But, many youths don't even know their own religious history and having built Islam from and on Judaism and Christianity...my opinion.

Have to admit that when you get into Tillitson et al you are the level of an old friend in Nashville who is a semi-retired egg headed Episcopalian Priest who once taught in seminary.

I am just a simple country Methodist, who was raised as a fundamentalist Southern Baptist in my youth...giving me a Calvanist outlook in a Wesley setting...pretty hairy!

Cheers, and I make so many typos feel free to correct me any time,
George

[jmm99]

from GLS
Your implication is that we Westerners have the burden to bending over backwards to accommodate them and their unusual beliefs.

definitely not my implication - in fact, quite the opposite, because bending over backwards (or forwards) would violate my concept of the separation of church and state.

1. Muslims (and Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists) should have freedom to practice their own religion so long as they do not injure others.

2. Special US laws for Muslims (or Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists) are unacceptable to me.

3. Sharia Law (in the US in any guise) is in its fundamental construct contrary to the US Constitution, which I'm thrice-sworn to support.

4. I will not accept dhimmitude imposed because of my religion (whether by Muslims or anyone else) - and would die first (relatively easy at my age ).

I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding of where I stand.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf has made the point, over and over, that Middle Eastern politics are very much based on religion (at least in part theonomous communities). There are, however, as you point out, secularists and pragmatists.

I have, but I should also add the dimension that religion in the Middle East is why you believe something, not how you believe it. Very, very little conflict actually comes from interference in religious practice. It is mostly about land and blood, and they inform belief, in the context of religion, - which is why you see Hezbollah victimising Druze and Sunni families in the Lebanon.

Now you don't need an HTT to understand this. It's all pretty simple, once you get that, and it's what makes the Israelis so difficult to second guess, as they have lots of competing sets of beliefs, as they are more politically and ethnically diverse.

[Bob's World]

Not specifically about any of this, but indirectly about all of it; if you get the chance read or listen to "Children of Jihad" by Jared Cohen. Great insights from the recent solo travels of a young American jewish man to meet and learn about young Muslims in several of the most heated areas of the Middle East.

Will agree with WILF that it is not about religion. He boils it down to "blood and land," and certainly that is always involved. I boil it down to one word: Respect.

Respect is a complicated emotion, toward the top of Maslow's heirarchy, but it is the one I believe that is most likely to drive men to a very committed form of conflict. From individual duals, to the American Revolution, to much of the Muslim strife in the world today. We may not know ####-all about Islam, but we all understand respect. Focusing on understanding the respect-based issues of the region and attempting to address them first would in my mind be a wise strategic sea change of approach.